Impressment of Carriages. (Hansard, 30 June 1879)

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
moved the insertion, after the word " purpose," in line 16, of the words " Provided the owner does not require them for his own special purposes." A man might, he pointed out, under the operation of the clause as it stood, be compelled, by the order of a constable, to supply carriages and horses for the conveyance of the regimental baggage and stores of troops on the march, no matter at what inconvenience to himself. Now, it was, in his opinion, unfair that a man who, perhaps, might have entered into an important contract for the carrying out of some work, and who was bound, under heavy penalties, to perform this 1035 contract within a certain time, should be prevented from doing so by being forced to place his horses and carriages, under all circumstances, at the service of the Army, when a demand was made for them. It was to provide against cases of hardship like that, that he proposed his Amendment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
was afraid that the adoption by the Committee of the. Amendment would have the effect of rendering the clause completely nugatory; for if the words proposed were inserted, the probable result would be that when the occasion for the impressment of horses and carriages arose, few owners would be backward in alleging, as an excuse for not complying with the demand, that they wanted them for their "own special purposes." He might also observe that waggons and other vehicles which were required when troops were on the march were hired by contract, or in other ways, in all those cases in which it was possible to enter into a pre-arrangement; and that it was but seldom that it would be found necessary to put the powers which were given by the clause into force.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it seemed to him somewhat curious that power should be taken by the clause to impress carriages and horses in the United Kingdom, while the same power was not extended to the Colonies. He should like to know what difference, in principle, there was between the case of the Colonies and that of the United Kingdom? Lately, as the Committee was aware, operations at the Cape had been brought to a standstill, because it was found impossible to procure the means of transport. Now, lie was not going to contend that either the Colonists or the inhabitants of the United Kingdom should not be entitled to make their own bargains in such matters when a state of war existed, as appeared to have been done in the Colony of Natal. It might be right, or it might be wrong, that they should be at liberty to do so; but what he should like to ascertain was, what the principle was on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) proceeded in limiting the operation of the clause to the United Kingdom? for it seemed to him to be a somewhat extraordinary thing to say that that which they would have a right to do in the United Kingdom they 1036 would have no right to do in the Colonies. The United Kingdom was placed, so far as he could see, in pretty much the same predicament as Zululand, where waggons were impressed when it was deemed to be necessary; although in the Colonies that could not be done. The clause, in short, would put the United Kingdom on a par with a country between us and which a state of war prevailed. But the subject was one on which he desired rather to obtain information than to express any positive opinion of his own.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, the fact was that the Colonies were entitled to deal themselves with all matters which were of local interest; but that the right was reserved to the Imperial Legislature to interpose in all matters of Imperial importance in connection with them. Now, the point raised by the hon. Member for Meath was clearly one of such local interest that the Imperial Parliament would not be justified in overruling the wishes of the Colonists with respect to it. That explanation would be sufficient to meet another difficulty to which the hon. Member had alluded. They could impress carriages and horses for the Army in Zululand, and not in Natal; because in Natal there was a local authority capable of regulating questions of local interest, while Zululand was an enemy's country, in which no such authority, so far as we were concerned, existed, and. in which, besides, a state of war existed.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, the right lion and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War appeared to think that great inconvenience to troops on the march might arise from the adoption of this Amendment. He would, however, point out to him that there was provision made further on in the clause that when sufficient carriages or animals could not be procured within the jurisdiction of a particular justice, any justice having jurisdiction in the next adjoining place would be obliged to supply the deficiency.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the clause, he believed, gave power to impress drivers as well as carriages, and contended that the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) did not cover the case of drivers. He noticed that drivers were impressed when they 1037 were found beyond the borders of the Colonies in South Africa, but that while they remained within those borders they were not interfered with. As he understood the Mutiny Bill, it gave power to impress drivers wherever they were; and the drivers so impressed were, he thought, always subject to martial law, whether on active service or not. He should like, therefore, to know whether, if the present Bill were to pass, they would in the same way he subject to martial law in the Colonies? It was a monstrous thing, in his opinion, that a driver, who was simply accompanying troops, should be placed under martial law.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, there was a wide distinction to be drawn between military law and martial law. Martial law might be regarded as existing where there was no law, and the Mutiny Act was not martial, but military law. That being so, the present Bill would place the drivers of waggons, who might be impressed in accordance with the provisions of the clause, under military law and the Mutiny Act, and it was absolutely necessary that that should be done; because they might drive away with their waggons, and take them over to the enemy, at a time when they were most needed. The control of military law must be kept over those men, and that control was exercised over them in the Colonies when the troops were on active service.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he did not think the point which was raised by the Amendment had been at all settled by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. Soldiers in the Army were subject to military law; but it did not follow from that, that men who were outside the Army, and without any obligation to enter its ranks, should be impressed as drivers, and, having been compelled to become drivers, be subjected to military law. To do that would be to impose a burden on them to which they ought not, in his opinion, to be exposed. Such a proposal was, in reality, one which would introduce the thin end of the wedge in the direction of conscription. He should like, then, clearly to understand whether a civilian driver could, under the operation of the clause, be forced to become an Army driver; and whether, having become an Army driver, 1038 he would then be subject to all the requirements of military law? If they could be made Army drivers only with their own consent, nothing could be more easy than to make provision to that effect.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the change proposed by the clause was one of a very important and radical nature. Under the old Mutiny Act, there was power to impress a driver, but not to place him under military law, and now it was proposed to extend that power. Nobody, in his opinion, ought to be brought under military law who did not understand. and was not in a position to understand, that to which he was being subjected. A very great hardship would, he could not help thinking, be inflicted by the clause.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that a driver was impressed because there was urgent occasion for his services, and that once having been impressed, he must be dealt with as if the case was one of voluntary enlistment. If a man, with a yoke of oxen and waggons, was impressed, and if he were to be at liberty to leave guns and ammunition in the midst of the bush, it would be better not to impress him at all. The reasons which justified the impressment of a man also justified measures being taken to secure that he should do that for which he was impressed. Nothing could be more ridiculous than when a man had carried guns or regimental stores half-way to their destination, he should be allowed, if he pleased, to leave them half-way, and move them neither backward nor forward.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
thought some misapprehension existed with regard to the true meaning of the clause, which did not contemplate that civilian drivers of waggons should be placed under martial law, except when the troops were on active service beyond the seas; and he would also observe that, in accordance with the provisions of the clause, it was simply contemplated that drivers should be impressed for the purpose of removing regimental baggage and stores on the march, and that the carriage of guns was not provided for.

§ MR. PARNELL
hoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not press his Amendment to a 1039 Division, for private convenience must be limited by the exigencies of the public service. The point, however, to which ho (Mr. Parnell) had called the attention of the Committee did not seem to him to have been at all clearly explained. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) said a driver would not be subject to military law except while the troops were on active service, and he should be very glad to be assured that that was so. But he found, on looking to Clause 167, which defined the persons who were to be subject to military law, that it included— All persons who are or may be hired to be employed in a corps of Artillery or Engineers. And those words applied, so far as he was able to understand, to persons who might be hired to drive the extra horses or the extra bullocks which might be required. He wanted to know whether drivers employed for horses and waggons used in the service of the troops might not be said "to accompany Her Majesty's troops or any part thereof?" He would read that portion of the Bill which, he thought, included them— All persons not otherwise subject to military law who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops, or any portion thereof, when employed on active service beyond the seas; subject to this qualification, that where any such persons are followers of or accompany any portion of Her Majesty's Forces consisting partly of Her Majesty's Indian Forces subject to Indian military law, and such persons are natives of India within the meaning of Indian military law, they should be subject to that law. Perhaps, however, they came within sub-section 9 of the same clause, which said that— All persons who are or may be hired to be employed in a corps of Artillery or Engineers, should be subject to military law. As, however, the number of persons who would be included under this head was limited, he did not think it worth while in insisting upon the point.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
desired to insert, in sub-section 3, before the word "town," 1040 the word " county." The sub-section would then read as follows:— In Ireland the grand jury for a county, a county of a city, a county of a town and city, or a city, or town and county, also any council of any such county, town, or city, having by law the fiscal powers of a grand jury, might exercise the powers given under the clause for payment and requisition as to carriages and animals.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
proposed to insert in the clause, after " carriages and animals," the words " kept on hire." The object of this Amendment was to keep the law in the same position as it had been hitherto. At present, on any occasion of emergency, the Government was able to make out a requisition for the impressment of all persons and carriages kept for hire. That provision was made in 1795, when there was a question of the country being invaded, and it was considered most important to move the troops from one part of the country to another with dispatch. The law then made had been kept in force ever since, and all horses and carriages kept for hire could be used for the purpose of the conveyance of troops when necessary. This regulation was made on the same principle on which all houses kept for the entertainment and lodging of guests were made available for lodging troops. It was thought that those who kept houses of entertainment for travellers should be compelled to take in soldiers when on the line of march. But by this Bill, instead of restricting the requisition for transport to those who kept horses and carriages for hire, the requisition was made to apply to all private individuals throughout the country; and other persons who kept a horse or carriage would be liable to have them seized for the removal of troops under a requisition. This was a most important change; and he wished the Committee to thoroughly understand what it was doing. The change was so very important that it ought to be carefully considered, especially when it was re- 1041 membered that there was no provision in the Bill for ascertaining what number of horses or carriages were kept, and that they might be impressed without a warrant. All that was provided was that a constable should make a list of all persons liable to furnish carriages and animals under the Act, and of the number and description of the carriages and animals of such persons; and everyone, rich and poor, would thus be liable to have his property requisitioned. Horses, carriages, carts, and waggons might be taken from every person, although there was no provision to specify what particular number might be taken from any individual. He thought that it would be better to leave the law in its present condition, restricting the power of requisition to such horses and carriages as were kept for hire. He should, therefore, move the Amendment to insert the words he had mentioned in the clause.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
I beg leave to say, Sir, that I am of a contrary opinion.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
hoped that the Committee would not agree to the insertion of the Amendment in the clause. In that clause they had departed from the former Act, and they did it advisedly for this reason—because it was thought that on an emergency there was no reason why everyone should not be called upon to have his horses and carriages used for the purposes of the State. They had thought it right that in time of emergency, and in that time only, the Government should be able to lay its hands upon any horses and carriages, and not only upon those that were kept for hire. The Committee would notice that by another clause it was provided that this should be done only in time of emergency, the existence of which should be signified by an Order in Council, and any undue use of the power would thus be guarded against.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
did not think that this Bill went far enough. It was much more necessary to have a power to take the troops over any portion of the country in any direction than it was to be enabled to seize horses. Moreover, under the power the horses that would be seized would not be those belonging to rich persons, but those of the shopkeepers and traders. In his opinion, the clause required to be thoroughly amended. It would be perfectly im- 1042 possible to take the troops in large bodies through the country under the powers given by the Bill. They ought to make full provision for the case of troops crossing the country, and this could not be done by merely impressing a few horses. He thought, also, that it should be provided that in time of peace only hired horses were to be used.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that this clause was one of a very extraordinary character, which the Government appeared to be desirous of smuggling into the Bill. Under the old Acts, which he had carefully looked into, he found that the power of impressing carriages and horses was limited to saddle-horses, and post-chaises, and for four-wheeled carriages kept for hire. But, by this clause, the Committee was asked to sanction a provision for the impressment of any horses or carriages, whether kept for hire or not. In time of emergency it would be necessary to have requisitions not only for the impressment of carriages and horses, but for the conveyance of troops in other ways, and, further, for billeting them. The provisions under the present Bill were inadequate for times of emergency; and, for all ordinary purposes, this clause would be entirely out of place.

§ MR. WHITWELL
wished to draw attention to Clause 114, which they had just passed. By that clause, provision was made for an annual list Of persons who were liable to supply carriages. Provision was made for a constable to call upon any person to furnish horses and carriages; but it was not provided that this requisition should be made without favouritism; and it was possible that one person might be called upon for all the horses and carriages he possessed, and another might not have to furnish any.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
suggested that the clause should be amended, by inserting that only such horses and carriages should be requisitioned as were " kept for hire, or are public carriages."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
observed, that in the old coaching times there were numbers of horses and carriages kept for hire all through the country. Post-houses existed on every road, within six or seven miles of each other, where numbers of horses and carriages were kept for hire. Now, all these things were altered, and they 1043 might go for miles and not find a single hired horse or carriage. Things had been entirely changed by the introduction of railways; and, therefore, if the provision for obtaining horses and carriages for the use of the public service in times of emergency were limited to hired horses and carriages, they would not be able to obtain any at all. Under these circumstances, it had been thought right that all persons, in any parish, who kept horses or carriages should be liable to have them taken for the public service when required. He did not see what objection could be made to the provision in the Bill.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
remarked, that the impressment of carriages often took place in London. Whenever a battalion of Guards left London, the commanding officer issued an order to impress carriages to remove the baggage to the railway station.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that there was no difficulty in obtaining hired carriages in London. But this was a question of right; and he did not think that such a sweeping measure as this should be passed.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that this clause only applied to times of emergency, the existence of which must be declared by an Order in Council. He understood his bon. and gallant Friend to state that it was the practice now to impress carriages and horses in certain places. But, so far as this clause went, the provision only came into force in times of emergency.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, that considering the very important powers given under this clause, he thought it right that they should have au assurance from the Government that the provision was only to come into force on the occurrence of the most grave and serious emergency, and that the emergency under which these powers were to be used should be communicated to Parliament when it arose. He should, therefore, move, at the end of Clause 115, page 62, line 28, to insert— Always, Provided that the existence of the emergency be communicated to Parliament previous to the powers of this clause being used. As this clause interfered with private property to a very great extent, it was 1044 most important that the existence of an emergency rendering it necessary should be communicated to the House. He did not think there could be any excuse for not communicating such emergency to Parliament.